Healthcare - Part II
Cost: When you get sick, or you feel a twinge in a muscle, or wake with a sore neck, what is one of your first thoughts? Besides the basic "I could really do without feeling like crap" I think "How much are they going to charge me if I go to the Dr.?" This thought includes knowing the amount of your copay, to not knowing other things such as cost of lab tests, cost of prescriptions, unknown costs. It's no wonder that we don't like to go to the Dr.! I realize it's not a simple proposal to figure out what is wrong physically with a patient, but isn't there some way to give us an idea how much something will cost before we have to commit?
One of the biggest negatives of a Nationalized/Universal Health Care system is the idea that the free market provides the absolute best cost savings for products. While I am a wholehearted believer in this idea, this is only true when one knows exactly what they are getting and they know the value of it before they are forced to buy it. As we've seen recently with energy sales, the price of a product is not necessarily driven by the actual cost of the product. Far from it, it's driven much more by the demand and need of that product by the consumer. Profits in the energy sector have ballooned because at every level of distribution and sale, they are able to take a huge markup in price because no one is able to question it because of the need of the product and the inability to compete with the person selling the product.
Imagine yourself in the desert, stranded, completely unable to get to any place that offers you relief from the thirst and heat. Now imagine someone comes along and offers you a glass of water. The value of the water is low, but because you need it so badly, they are able to offer you an exorbitant rate on that water. Note: I use need here and not demand. Demand, in my mind, conveys a completely different idea. An idea that a good or service you are offering is a completely discretionary expense by your customer, and therefore you have to actually compete for their business. Need conveys that the customer cannot go without a certain product and the only competition becomes who sells them a good or service.
Probably foremost in my mind of the current cost of health care, is insurance. Not what I pay, but what the hospital or clinics pay. What they have to pay for malpractice protection. What is that cost to me when I receive treatment of any kind? Is the cost of the insurance passed on to the treatment for which it's specifically intended or is spread over the entirety of the business as an overhead? Prescription drugs, hospital equipemnt, and basic material also have to have some sort of insurance or hospital grade attached to them. Are all these things the largest cost of my bill? If they are, what can be done to reduce them without reducing quality of care? Would it be viable to be able to sign waivers to reduce your cost of care? Obviously these are questions I have no answer for, but may be the single largest contribution to the ballooning of costs in the medical field today.
Next in cost would be the salary and benefits of it's employees. Definitely always a rising cost, is it something that can be looked at as being out of line in some sectors? Not nursing or staffing, but specialists and especially executives. I do believe in being able to set your own worth, and therefore I have an issue with any talk of curtailing salaries, but at what point does something become that exorbitant, especially concerning executive salaries. Can there be more diligence taken in the hiring of these positions so as to not have to pay these large salaries?
Every year, we continue to have advanced technology in every form of medicine. Because we have new technologies, are the old ones obsolete? Or, is it feasible to have levels of care to give the customers choice: Instead of using the brand new technology, use the 2 year old technology. How much choice should we give a consumer that cannot comprehend the complete picture of his or her own problem?
Finally, accountability of costs. If there is no checks and balances for the cost of a product to the consumer, does the hospital/clinic necessarily care what the item costs them, or can they simply mark the item up a comfortable amount. How many times from the manufacturer to the end user does each item receive a markup? Tougher standards in showing the actual cost of a product all along the line could be a good first step in keeping costs from rising too dramatically.
To be honest, I'm not sure where to go to solve the problem. But the first step must be to have people agree that the current situation is a problem. Whatever we do, we must start now. A basic form of Universal care that covers the basics but implements regulations and cost controls on other aspects of the system could possibly work. I do believe we're past the point of saying that controlling costs of the healthcare system through free market forces is the best way to go. Those who use this argument are either reciting a standard line without additional knowledge or are currently benefitting from the current system.
How can so many other industrialized/Western nations provide basic healthcare for their citizenry and we are stuck with THIS???
One of the biggest negatives of a Nationalized/Universal Health Care system is the idea that the free market provides the absolute best cost savings for products. While I am a wholehearted believer in this idea, this is only true when one knows exactly what they are getting and they know the value of it before they are forced to buy it. As we've seen recently with energy sales, the price of a product is not necessarily driven by the actual cost of the product. Far from it, it's driven much more by the demand and need of that product by the consumer. Profits in the energy sector have ballooned because at every level of distribution and sale, they are able to take a huge markup in price because no one is able to question it because of the need of the product and the inability to compete with the person selling the product.
Imagine yourself in the desert, stranded, completely unable to get to any place that offers you relief from the thirst and heat. Now imagine someone comes along and offers you a glass of water. The value of the water is low, but because you need it so badly, they are able to offer you an exorbitant rate on that water. Note: I use need here and not demand. Demand, in my mind, conveys a completely different idea. An idea that a good or service you are offering is a completely discretionary expense by your customer, and therefore you have to actually compete for their business. Need conveys that the customer cannot go without a certain product and the only competition becomes who sells them a good or service.
Probably foremost in my mind of the current cost of health care, is insurance. Not what I pay, but what the hospital or clinics pay. What they have to pay for malpractice protection. What is that cost to me when I receive treatment of any kind? Is the cost of the insurance passed on to the treatment for which it's specifically intended or is spread over the entirety of the business as an overhead? Prescription drugs, hospital equipemnt, and basic material also have to have some sort of insurance or hospital grade attached to them. Are all these things the largest cost of my bill? If they are, what can be done to reduce them without reducing quality of care? Would it be viable to be able to sign waivers to reduce your cost of care? Obviously these are questions I have no answer for, but may be the single largest contribution to the ballooning of costs in the medical field today.
Next in cost would be the salary and benefits of it's employees. Definitely always a rising cost, is it something that can be looked at as being out of line in some sectors? Not nursing or staffing, but specialists and especially executives. I do believe in being able to set your own worth, and therefore I have an issue with any talk of curtailing salaries, but at what point does something become that exorbitant, especially concerning executive salaries. Can there be more diligence taken in the hiring of these positions so as to not have to pay these large salaries?
Every year, we continue to have advanced technology in every form of medicine. Because we have new technologies, are the old ones obsolete? Or, is it feasible to have levels of care to give the customers choice: Instead of using the brand new technology, use the 2 year old technology. How much choice should we give a consumer that cannot comprehend the complete picture of his or her own problem?
Finally, accountability of costs. If there is no checks and balances for the cost of a product to the consumer, does the hospital/clinic necessarily care what the item costs them, or can they simply mark the item up a comfortable amount. How many times from the manufacturer to the end user does each item receive a markup? Tougher standards in showing the actual cost of a product all along the line could be a good first step in keeping costs from rising too dramatically.
To be honest, I'm not sure where to go to solve the problem. But the first step must be to have people agree that the current situation is a problem. Whatever we do, we must start now. A basic form of Universal care that covers the basics but implements regulations and cost controls on other aspects of the system could possibly work. I do believe we're past the point of saying that controlling costs of the healthcare system through free market forces is the best way to go. Those who use this argument are either reciting a standard line without additional knowledge or are currently benefitting from the current system.
How can so many other industrialized/Western nations provide basic healthcare for their citizenry and we are stuck with THIS???
posted by Corey Eslinger at 12:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home